The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

0 C14 Twstees say th <nUThey suggested somne of the wayspaet >ýand the general public should ibe contce cn about Internet filtering should include a Slink on the board's website to a folder that _would hold ail feedback on the issue for pub- Slic viewing plus a page of frequently asked Squestions and answers on the subject. ME Those final changes tacked on to the original ur recommendation passed unanimously. Trustees said they felt compelled to take Sa harder look at possible Internet filtering Q based on new and changed information 2 brought to them by Smith. C"Only pornographîc sites is a lot different othan a wider filter," said Bateman-Olmstead. She expressed concern that the concept of a broad Internet filter might give students E the message the board believes they can't 0 be trusted. 10 "If you expect negative behavior, you will î6 get negative behavior; that's the nature of .~youth7 Smith told trustees at the April 2 meeting that the cost of Internet filtering had been Smodified to $85,000 in the first year of in- stallation and about $1 5,000 in subsequent years. He also told the board there's the ability to differentiate the filtering of sites whether ay feel compelled to take harder Iook at Intemet fiItedng they be eiementary or secondary schools, by grade level or by students or staff. Oakville trustee Ann Harvey Hope said that while she appreciated the verbal update of filtering information from Smith at that night's board meeting she would have pre- iferred it earlier. Lots of public feedback: trustee «I have been getting a lot of (public) feed- back. 1 wish it (updated information) could have been in the original report.There wasn't ireally away to clarify it (in advance) with the public, that it means this or it means that.»' Harvey Hope also noted that the board has student usage agreements with municipal libraries that are connected to somne schools 1 and that if the board decides on filtering of i some sort it might contravene arrangements it has made with city/town libraries. "We would meet with (our) library partners once a decision is made at the board... and see if it meets. with their approval:' Smith said. Vrooman said he too has been inundated with feedback on WFi frltering from the pub- lic. 'This is clearly controversial. lt's not just (an) operational or pedagogical (issue)....1 received a lot of comments from the public, about 100, on both sides. ' Vrooman asked if a filter would block aIl access to pornographic sites through the board's WiFi feed. If not, how much might get through and what is getting through now, he wondered. Smith told him principals at elementary schools might have to deal with one to two serious Internet subject access issues related to porn per year; he said the numbers are "far less" at the high school level. 1I can't say it wilI filter out most (porn) sites. I can't say 100 per cent. The greater concern is those (people) not on our WiFi,"said Smith, re- ferring to individuals using G3 or G4 devices; those are capable of sending and receiving wireless data such as voice, text, pictures, etc. He noted too that with the board expanding WiFi outside of classrooms and its new Bring l.T. initiative, which encourages students to bring their information technology devices to school for in-class learning, theres more po- tential for access to what might be considered iriappropriate sites. FitRw wWt affect oubde doe"c Any filter attached to the boards' WiFi won't prevent peuple who bring their own elec- tronic devices that use another network firom, accessing blocked websites, said Smith «Manly (board) staff are opposed to the (filter- ing) initiative.... In general, N'e heard a lot more opposition than those in favour:' He noted most school boa rds in the GTA have Internet filters but stili deal with access issues pertaining to 3G and 4G devices. "l've heard from sonne staff at other boards who say there is some over-filtering going on at their boa rd." Most trustees who spoke at the meeting said the response from parents and the public has been overwhelming in terms of what they think about WiFi filtering. 1I had several conversations with families. l'm generally against filtering' "although she acknowledged the concerns of familles with young children, said Bateman-Olmstead. Burlington trustee Dianna Bower said her opinion has wavered. "My first visceral response was let's get this filtering going. Now, I don't know if it will fix the problerre, She saîd it might be better for the board to put more emphasis on appropriate usage of information technology in schools, what the board calîs digital citizenship. Donna Danielli, a Milton trustee, saud she has heard some opposition to an Internet filter fromn staff but that the vast majotty of parents she has been in contact with are in fa~ou of a filter, based on initial Information provided by board staff. Bishop Reding S.S., 1120 Main St. E. Milton -Sund ayriay 4,201-47- Register at mswaNcs.ca or 1-800-268-7582 ext. 3154 Title Sponsor National Sponsors Provincial Partner rreS IMS. WALK EVERY STEP MATTERS, Àpae Y co neCeCi Gel agil the communty nevmsfrom Milton, Oakvile, Burlington and suudnareas quckl and convenienty onfine and Ar your comun'te onsur soundîn to your community? m